Currently
before the Court is Petitioner Manuel Enrique Camacho's
Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 97), filed on December 16, 2016. Camacho
filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) in this
Court on April 13, 2012. The Report and Recommendation
("R&R") (Doc. 96) filed by United States
Magistrate Judge James R. Marschewski on November 29, 2016,
advises the Court to dismiss Camacho's Petition. For the
reasons stated herein, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and
DISMISSES Camacho's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition.

I.
BACKGROUND

Though
the R&R sets forth this case's factual and procedural
history, a brief recounting is useful to frame the
Court's analysis herein. Camacho pleaded guilty in Benton
County Circuit Court to capital murder on July 11, 2008. In
October of that year, Camacho began pursuing post-conviction
relief in state court in accordance with Arkansas Rule of
Criminal Procedure 37. After the Arkansas Supreme Court
denied his requested relief, Camacho filed the instant
Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 6,
2013, this Court dismissed the Petition as having been
untimely filed. The Eighth Circuit then reversed on appeal,
vacated the Court's dismissal, and entered judgment
remanding the case for further proceedings. (Doc. 34). After
the Government filed, and the Supreme Court denied, a
petition for writ of certiorari. Magistrate Judge Marschewski
set the matter for an evidentiary hearing on April 19, 2016.
For reasons not germane to this Opinion, the evidentiary
hearing was delayed until November 8, 2016. At the hearing.
Magistrate Judge Marschewski took testimony from Dr. Pablo
Stewart, who conducted a mental health evaluation on Camacho
for use in the underlying state proceedings; Judge Tom J.
Keith, who presided over those proceedings; and attorneys Tim
Buckley and Kent McLemore, who were Camacho's attorneys
throughout those proceedings.

Magistrate
Judge Marschewski then issued his R&R on November 29,
2016. The R&R summarizes Camacho's claims as follows,
before addressing each in turn:

1. His guilty plea was coerced;

2. His trial counsel was ineffective by:

a. failing to provide an interpreter at each court proceeding
and during discussions with him,

b. failing to ensure that mental-health evaluations were
completed prior to the entry of a guilty plea to determine
competency to stand trial,

c. inducing him to enter a guilty plea,

d. failing to conduct an adequate pre-trial investigation,
and

e. failing to move to dismiss the charges on speedy-trial
grounds;

3. He was actually and constructively denied counsel due to a
delay in consular notification; and

4. The State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by failing
to disclose to the defense until jury selection had begun the
fact that a gun had been located ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.